It is important to note that while Canikon has a wide array of lenses, many of them are outdated and cannot keep up with currents sensors let alone the sensor tech that may be coming down the pike.

In truth both companies may have have 5-10 lenses each that are ready for the future.

...just those 5 (or more challenging 10) lenses from Canon alone you deem ready for the future, and then I'll rise you twofold if not threefold within a second, right of the top of my head (plus a delay needed by me for spotting your reply) - a game???

Perhaps "How far can we trust the camera companies?" would have been a more meaningful, if less provocative, question. Long term we all know photography is changing and the equipment we are buying will probably have a much shorter useful life than what we expected in the past. I don't expect anyone to predict where cameras will be 5 years from now, much less 10. But I sure would like an idea what Sony and the rest are planning for the next 2 or 3 years -- say the next 2 product cycles.

As some others have hinted, I no longer see a camera system as a long-term commitment. About 3 years seems as far ahead as we can see, and I can live with that. But right now with Sony I can't even see 3 months.

I'm not saying Sony is that much worse than the rest. I don't expect the future to be guaranteed -- I'm old enough to know better -- but before I put down another $2,000 or so to round out a system I'd sure like to have a good idea of the next couple of years. Right now I'm very tempted to hedge my bets with an RX10 -- which if it worked out might move me out of the system market for the rest of my life.

The camera business will be a very interesting spectator sport the next few years, but it's a bitch of a time to be making buying decisions.

Vogel's video preview also uses FE 55 so clearly a lens that will work with a6000 well. And it is indeed the 85mm equiv lens for portraiture (viking reported true focal length being 57mm probably rounded to 55mm).

It offers the same FOV on APSc that m43 users (that Thom thinks is doing a better job) will with Panasonic's $1600, 42mm f/1.2 and Fuji on APSc with 56/1.2. Just wait and see how people react if FE 85 is close to a grand as well (DOF and FOV that m43 and Fuji are trying to match with likely larger and heavier lenses, and equally and more expensive too).

... If Nikon and Canon decide to go with a smaller mount, you can bet that they will release high quality adapters to use F-mount and EF lenses.

Canon has already developed a shorter flange distance lens mount for the EOS-M. They released with it a high quality adapter for EF lenses. Canon has failed by not releasing a high quality camera body with faster AF and compounded it with now limiting distribution for the EOS-M 2.

Nikon has developed a smaller mount in the CX mount for the 1" sensor 1 Series. They have a superb high quality adapter for F-mount lenses in the FT-1. Nikon has chosen to not support screw AF lenses but fully supports AF-S lenses for AF. AE is supported for AF-S and screw AF lenses. Aperture Priority and Manual Exposure is supported for AI-S lenses.

Nikon has failed only by not taking advantage of the short flange distance to support adapted lenses. There is no "shoot without lens" option so lenses/adapters are manual exposure only, not even Auto-ISO or Aperture Priority Mode. There is no focus peaking to assist with manual focus.

In my mind it is unbelievable that Pentax, Canon, and Nikon have not developed an EVF based interchangeable lens camera based on the K, EF, F (AF-S) lens mounts (flange distance constant) respectively. Why obsolete the current investment in lenses when an EVF based body as an alternative and supplement to a pentaprism and mirror based body would only add to the product line?

Let the customer choose which viewfinder/body style is best for them.

I expect Sony to eventually release a version of the current SLT cameras with the removal of the SLT mirror and the inclusion of PDAF focus sensors in the image sensor using the Alpha mount. These cameras (FF and APS-C) would have EVF, AF motors for screw drive lenses, and sensor based in body image stabilization.

To me, as a new user in this segment, this is hardly a problem. There aren't a lot of lenses in the E-mount, as some said, once you remove the mediocre ones, but there are those I'm interested into. I'd really like to see a 70-135mm/f4 zoom much lighter than the 70-200mm f/4, but I reckon this is a sort of exotic request.

Just a quick note of support - although my vote would be for 50-150f4. Seems to me that would be a natural companion to the 16-70 as well as working with the existing kit lenses. Whatever they do, it seems to me an E mount companion to the 16-70 is pretty important for keeping serious users in the system.

...

A way to solve this uncertainty, real or perceived, would be by means of Sony to release a more detailed roadmap for the 2/3 next years, but this is probably a problem for a corporate, as this would be too deep a constraint for them - but this, in the end, confirms the idea that they are not 100% sure of what they're doing.

A roadmap would be nice, but as you say, does not seem likely. I think Sony has been rethinking their strategy and they may not yet be settled into long term plans. After trying FF for several months last year I'm now committed to smaller sensors -- I just did not get the quality boost to justify the extra size, weight and cost. While there is a lot I like about Sony E mount I worry about where it will go in the next 2 or 3 years.

Let us assume Sony does an E 50-150/4 OSS for $1k. The following will be the arguments made against it:- too slow- not small- not cheap (expect paying no less than $900)

Assuming Sony listens to the inanity and develops an f/2.8...- too big and heavy. What is the point of E-mount cameras again?- to expensive

IMO, Sony ought to gradually build its lineup, FE primes and a couple E zooms that are faster but the latter can wait until the common sense lineup is in place.

The only zooms that tempt me are 10-18/4 and 16-70/4 primarily because they are small, light and very good. Samsung 16-50/2-2.8 is an example of going overboard (Fuji 16-55/2.8 appears to be as well), exceeding the size, weight and doubling the cost of my A-mount 16-50/2.8. If someone thought a lens with 72mm filter was too thick, Fuji's 77mm filter lens wouldn't be helping that cause. If one thought 577g was too much, add another 50g rivaling Minolta Beercan and one gets the Samsung zoom lens.

Many old Minolta lenses are not being serviced any longer. They have film coatings. The AF is often slow and loud. There are no warranty options. And they must be purchased on the used market. So the idea that the beer can is a viable option is not good for someone who wants a modern competitive system that can be serviced.

Just because a-mount has some lenses does not make it a complete lens line up, i.e. where are these lenses:

50 1.8

UWA f4 (or something below 2k)

24-105

85 f1.8/2

70-200 f4

35 f2/2.8

40-50mm f2.8 pancake

any tilt shift options (17mm, 24mm, 90mm)

big exotics

These are the lenses that are just flat out missing. There are also plenty on Minolta rebadges that need to be up updated and are no longer competitive.

The list above is just for FF lenses, and only a-mount.

2) Sony has done terribly on FF bodies. They have really released two a-mount bodies (a900/a99) since 2008. The a850 is really a extremely slight rehash of the a900. And I do looooove that camera.

3) Using non-native lenses on a camera does not complete a system, although it can work. Having ILC cameras like the Fuji series or NEX is great. I have used both. And I have a set of legacy lenses. I have also used LAEA adapter with NEX. It's a nice option, it's not a substitute. Aside from loss of stabilization and extra bulk, there is another couple hundred you spend on the LAEA adapter. By the way, there are four of them now…nice money scam Sony. If you're going to shoot NEX, the major selling point in big IQ in a small package. If you are using large lenses, you're negative a major strength of the system.

4) I primarily shot a mount for several years, and I love that system. The AF zeiss and Sony bodies are lovely. But aside from very high end options, and used lenses, you start to run out of options quick--especially if you need anything more than very standard glass.

5) Sony has 5 large sensor camera lines right now--aps-c a/e mount, ff a/e mount, and RX100/10/1. All interchangeable lens mounts are vastly incomplete. Sony keep building a very basic system, makes some promise, then moves on. E-mount ape-c and a-mount ape-c and FF have been shown so little attention lately.

I am sure some will attack this post and call me a hater and wish me off to other systems. But I have shot Sony extensively. Both FF and crop. When Sony fits the bill, it's fabulous. The Zeiss 85 and 135 are spectacular lenses that give superb results on the a900/a99. The FE 55 1.8 is superb. The 24 1.8 is a wonderful lens. I hear very good things about the 16-50 2.8 a-mount.

It's really a bummer Sony can't dedicate itself to a single target/mount. Had they consolidated all their resources to one mount, the market share would have been much better. Sony never tried to truly challenge Nikon and Canon in earnest. They never stuck around, built a system, catered to different demographics, worked with many smaller camera shops, capitalized on Zeiss AF glass, release firmware updates, refresh lenses, etc.

Shooters can shout and make excuses, but it's extremely hard to argue with results. People will go to the best option. Photographers are no "prejudice" they want the best option for the least money.

I did preface by saying it was A-mount was reasonably complete. Sony will never compete with Canon or Nikon on lens system completeness. If you need tilt shift or can not make do with the Sony 70-300 G becuase it is not an F4 or the 70-200 2.8 is to big/expensive then I guess you are SOL. Sony has had to try to compete on other fronts (providing usable live view, decent video AF, Mirrorless, etc.) which may or may not be important to everyone but they seem to have their place.

If you are one of the very very small minority that needs that absolute highest quality lenses in ever focal length, then Sony will not work for you. I'd say most ILC cameras Sony sells are to people that don't own a single lens of very few. I'm not sure how interested Sony is in the Pro market as they can probably make more money at the consumer/hobbyist level.

How many of Nikon's lenses are actually good enough to use on a D800? As sensor quality improves, Nikon and Canon are going to have issues as well as many of their lenses are not going to cut it if you want to get the most out of the sensors.

What's the answer for a serious user? Buy a D800E and feast at the vast cornucopia of F-mount lenses. If you're a little strapped on cash, then the D610 instead.

Oh I see, so you wrote a bunch of things degrading the strategies of all the other camera makers and, even suggesting, Nikon doesn't know what they are doing and your recommendation is for me to go with the most "messed up body line up" of all?Someone needs to remind this old guy that the "apps" that he constantly refers need to have a smartphone to run on. And this smartphone, the hottest one right now, is on Sony side.

But for one like us there will be ten unlike us (count many professional reviewers as well) hence the noise. Then there is the issue of what do we gain with a 50-150/4 that can't be properly used on all E-mount bodies as opposed to the FE 70-200/4 that can be. We are basically lowering the reach with hope of significant cut back in cost, size and weight which I am not sure will be significant.

Since picking up a Minolta 70-210/4, I have wanted to see Sony put a similar lens (I was thinking A-mount) and weeks later the 70-200 was announced. that lens makes more sense toe even 100-150g could be trimmed, with couple of hudred dollars less in lower range with APSc. I also believe in that it is better to invest on lenses as an upgrade path than to look at bodies as a path to upgrade. If I were to choose going FF, the key component will already be home.

A point Thom could learn is that lenses are becoming disposable commodities too. The trend really started with the arrival of AF systems and accelerated over last few years with drive by wire designs from all manufacturers. Another key to disposability is increased ease of replacing systems.

I totally disagree. I've been building my Nikon lens collection since 1999/2000, that's almost 15 years, and they are all AF and still working. I don't like to waste money and if I'm going to spend several hundreds euros for a lens, it's going to stay for a very long time.

it is an interesting article, but it seems to make one assumption that I dont think always holds true. Thom seems to think that all serious photographers need a large selection of lenses. This might be true for some, but there are many others, some very successful professionals who get by perfectly well with only 2 or three lenses. If the system you want has the lenses you want the fact they dont have a huge set like Nikon or Canon isnt really important to you

A point Thom could learn is that lenses are becoming disposable commodities too. The trend really started with the arrival of AF systems and accelerated over last few years with drive by wire designs from all manufacturers. Another key to disposability is increased ease of replacing systems.

I totally disagree. I've been building my Nikon lens collection since 1999/2000, that's almost 15 years, and they are all AF and still working. I don't like to waste money and if I'm going to spend several hundreds euros for a lens, it's going to stay for a very long time.

My oldest AF lenses are from the 80s. They work on Sony bodies today as they were intended to, may be better because the AF system has been improved significantly since that 1985 Minolta a7000. They even work on my NEX bodies since Sony chose to support screw drive lenses.

Nikon has slowly eroded that screw drive lens support. Nikon bodies are also finicky about metering. So, the issue has been there. And we are not talking about the additional challenges with mirrorless technology yet. If the legacy PDAF lenses can transition transparently into mirrorless world, great... more hope. If they don't... You will see more of what you should with Nikon CX. More drive by wire? You bet.

Then look at Canon 85/1.2. It is an EF lens, but does it allow anything but drive by wire?

A point Thom could learn is that lenses are becoming disposable commodities too. The trend really started with the arrival of AF systems and accelerated over last few years with drive by wire designs from all manufacturers. Another key to disposability is increased ease of replacing systems.

I totally disagree. I've been building my Nikon lens collection since 1999/2000, that's almost 15 years, and they are all AF and still working. I don't like to waste money and if I'm going to spend several hundreds euros for a lens, it's going to stay for a very long time.

I'm glad your lenses are still working, and I hope they continue to do so. But how long is it fair to expect them to continue to work with all the electronic complexity involved? Some of us are shooting with 50 year old lenses with no problem. "Disposable commodities" doesn't sound right, because they are so expensive, but we have to face facts. Lenses won't have the life expectancy they used too, unless they are superbly made all mechanical designs.